Abstract

The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime, premised upon the right of investors to bring arbitration proceedings directly against a host state pursuant to an investment treaty between the host state and the investor's home state, has been credited with making a significant contribution to the peaceful - and potentially more economical - settlement of investment disputes, by doing away with the need for diplomatic protection and thus de-politicizing such disputes. However, as such treaties and claims proliferate, and in particular as awards have been rendered that are perceived ...